Policy analysts should research the issues and determine the fundamental causes of social problems such as crime, poverty, or homelessness and then recommend solutions. Support your position with examples or evidence drawn from the policy-making process.
define a standard cost and explain what constitutes the components of a standard cost. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of a standard cost system and explain under what circumstances a standard cost system is most effective.
Examine the proposed business ethical problem that the Brazilian Federal Data Processing Service is presently experiencing. Determine whether you agree or disagree that Brazil’s problem is an ethical one that should be corrected. Provide a rationale for your response. 2. Assess the levels of security deficiencies inherent in the Brazilian Federal Data Processing Service original enterprise architecture. Conclude whether or not Brazil could have previously considered its current problem and built an original architecture that would have prevented the problem in question. Provide a rationale for your response. 3. Evaluate the quality of the Brazilian Federal Data Processing Service’s proposed architecture plan geared toward solving the security problem. Suggest 2 other possible architecture solutions that the Brazilian Federal Data Processing Service should consider. Justify your response. 4. Determine whether or not one (1) of the governments or intelligence agencies that you researched has taken precautions to avoid a security breach similar to the one that the Brazilian Federal Data Processing Service had experienced. If this government organization or intelligence agency has taken precautions to avoid a similar security breach, provide one (1) example of such a precaution. If this government organization or intelligence agency has not taken precautions to avoid a similar security breach, recommend one (1) action that it can take in order to avoid a similar security breach.
Descartes eventually gives up his hyperbolic doubt (his game of feigned and extreme skepticism) and admits that there are real external objects in the world and that other people even exist. But, even though he admits that primary qualities (such as height, weight, length, mass, and anything else that can be measured mathematically) actually exist in the object, he never concedes that secondary qualities (such as color, smell, taste, shape, and anything else that can change or can be misinterpreted by the senses) exist in an object. Instead, he argues that secondary qualities exist in the perceiver, and not in the object. Color is a great example, because two people can be perceiving the same object but each seeing it as a different color, meaning that the “color” is in the perceiver’s mind and not in the object itself; if color were in the object, both people would agree. Hume agrees with Descartes that primary qualities are in the object, but he also thinks that secondary qualities are in the object as well (and not just in our minds). If there is any disagreement about a secondary quality, Hume would say that it is because one of the perceivers is wrong. But, when it comes to gaining information that we can usually trust to be true, the bottom line is that Hume trusts the five senses of the body and Descartes does not, since he trusts only the mind’s ability to reason to undoubtable certainty, and that certainty is about primary qualities. Of course, the differences between Descartes and Hume (and, thus, between the Rationalists and the Empiricists) are more complicated than presented here and need additional explanation to demonstrate just how far apart these two philosophers actually are in their thinking. THAT is your assignment—demonstrating the differences between Descartes and Hume with regard to what each of them believe can be known with certainty and what can be assumed to be reasonably “believed,” but with far less certainty. • This is going to be hard at first for some students, but if you can do it, it will make it a lot easier to see the differences between Descartes (who is a Rationalist) and Hume (who is an Empiricist). What you are going to do for this assignment is to visually demonstrate the differences between Descartes and Hume regarding what can be known for certain, and what can be (and should be) doubted. • The driving force behind this assignment is that you cannot write an essay, and, however you present the information, you are limited to one 8 ½ x 11 inch page. You can make a chart, construct a diagram, create graphics, provide a combination of all the previous methods, and so forth, but you cannot write a paper. The idea is that you are constructing something for yourself that makes the information easier and more accessible for you when comparing and contrasting the two very different epistemological approaches. • You will not be graded on your art skills (if you draw pictures) or on your ability to use technology to draw lines and so forth. Your actual “picture” can be very rough, and that is OK. The point of the assignment is to help you find alternative methods for representing difficult information in a way that makes it easier for you to master it. Not everyone can memorize a page of technical terms, but “seeing” how things work together can make it a lot easier. So, learning this skill can be very beneficial when you have to deal with highly technical information in future classes. Please do not use anything other than your textbook as a source for this assignment. And, definitely include all the major ideas from both philosophers dealing with how we learn, what we can know, and any method we can use to reach certainty about our knowledge.
he First Amendment There are three parts to this assignment. Part One The First Amendment actually says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Our Founding Fathers were very familiar with the writings of John Locke, and the need to keep government and religions separate was just as important to them as guaranteeing the toleration of different religious beliefs. • What were Locke’s three primary reasons for keeping government and religion separate? Which one of those reasons do you think is the most applicable today, and why? Part Two Many people misread the First Amendment and think it is advocating “freedom from religion” rather than “freedom of religion.” They use this misreading to ban symbols of religion from public places. • From what you know about Locke, explain whether or not you think that Locke’s view of religious toleration would require the removal of religious symbols from the public view. Be sure to provide evidence for your position that is based on logical reasoning rather than emotional reactions. Feel free to quote from the textbook to support what you believe would be Locke’s position concerning the government prohibiting the display of religious symbols. • Also, based on what Locke has said, do you think there ever could be times that it would be legitimate for the government to suppress a religion or some of their beliefs because of that religion’s extreme practices—even if what they are doing is not breaking the law? Why or why not? Part Three Regardless of how you answered the second question, Mill (a father of Liberalism) insists that progress and happiness (for both the individual and society) is only possible when each person is able to express himself openly and fully about the things important to him. The criticism of this liberal view is that left to our own devises, the diversity in our pursuits of individual goals and interests will lead to disputes, and, thus, rules and regulations are needed to allow individuals to develop their goals within a more structured society and so they can learn their social obligations to the community as a whole. The problem with liberalism, the critics say, is that by making our ability to choose for ourselves the highest objective, we may embrace the notion of diversity, but we are no longer interested in tolerating differences or even in considering how to integrate the diversity of ideas into a cohesive society made up of individuals. Ultimately, then, following this line of thought, the toleration of a diversity of religions leads to a disunity within the community and a disinterest in social responsibility. • If the above conclusions about liberalism are true, would restricting religious diversity to five or six major religions in the United States still give people a choice in how they worship but also eliminate some of the religious divisiveness which separates people (whether through stereotyping or other forms of prejudice) and prevents the citizenry as a whole from viewing itself as a single nation in which we all cooperate and work together for the common good? In other words, is all of this religious toleration actually dividing us even further rather than uniting us as a society?
